[mechant-lapin]

...................................................

[X--Pikachoo--X]

random question, but what did you have to highlight all of your text in black? makes it harder to read...

say stuff like research on animals provides invaluable cures (i.e. lesioning parts of the brains of mice/etc to find the function of each brain part....obviously not ethical to do on humans. or using selective breeding with animals to see effects of specific genes, again obviously not ethical for humans)

rights = inherent to humans only
language, government, etc all ideas created by humans
there's no evidence that animals are capable of the same level of mental ability, idea of rights is alien to them

i dunno, just saying random stuff off the top of my head
:] good luck with your debate...sound confident, that'll help a lot, trust me (im in debate too xP)

[skadoosh!]

uh why the spolier thing.
and why the . for the title?
but honestly, i think that a good debater can take BOTH sides, no matter what.
for example, animal testing can secure human healthyness which then can promote animal healthyness.
e.g. if we suddenly find something that is like, a drug that gives calcium or something, we wouldnt have to shove chemicals into cows.
but first, we would have to test it on animals
something like that.

[DaAzNkIgGa627]

It's always fun being Devil's Advocate. I mean I had to defend Nazis (and got one of the worst, Goebbels to 4 suspended sentence =P aka. Slap on the wrist) for a class using avaliable evidence.

To become a good debater you need to be able to take both sides, althought it definitely is easier if it's something you believe =P

I think first thing is first you need to concede some general points so that your opponents cannot paint you as an extremist, you need to say that animals must not be intentionally (key word) be treated cruelly.

-Anyways speak of the natural order of things. Animals are naturally to be eaten by humans.
-Animals can hold invaluable cures and understanding to and of living things.
-Argue while it is unethical to intentionally harm animals, that the amount of human lives that come out of accidental harm for potential cures and such is worth the risk.
-Argue that testing on animals can help improve the living conditions for animals anyways.

I don't think arguing pain is necissarily a good idea because it is pretty evident when something like a dog is in pain, but you might want to twist that point saying that the lower intelligence something is the less comprehension it has of pain.

Hope this helps.